1. Article 36 of the Panamanian constitution established the right to freedom
of expression: "Every person may freely express his opinion orally, in
writing or by any other means, without subjection to prior censorship. However,
legal liability shall be incurred when by any of these means the reputation
or honor of persons is assailed or when social security or public order is attacked."

2. Cabinet Decree No. 342, 31 October 1969 (Gaceta Oficial, No. 16.480) which
was in effect until just after the visit of the IACHR, limited the right to
freedom of investigation, opinion, expression and dissemination, in the name
of public order. Various types of expression, set out previously in Chapter
Four, were considered a crime of subversion of public order under Article 3
of this decree.

3. Cabinet Decree No. 343, 31 October 1969 (Gaceta Oficial, No. 16.480, 5
November 1969), which was in effect until February 14, 1978, regulated the freedom
of expression by establishing the obligation of owners of printing presses,
radio and television stations, and newspapers to register their businesses with
the proper authorities, to provide copies of any printed material to the government
on the same day of the printing, and to keep, for one year, the signed originals
of printed material, and recordings or transcripts of radio and television programs.
(Article 4) Article One, however, declared that "the expression of opinions
and in general public transmission of thoughts, either in writing or by any
other means is not subject to prior censorship."

Decree 343 defined calumny, insults and the spreading of false or unauthorized
information and provided for fines, indemnization, civil actions and criminal
actions leading to sentences of six months for insults, and three to six months
for publishing false or unauthorized information. On its face, this decree constituted
an interference with freedom of expression and it contained several aspects
that, because of broad and ambiguous language, aggravated its effect:

a) the establishment of prison sentences for acts that normally give rise only
to civil actions;

b) findings of guilt and sentencing in these cases were by an administrative
decree, rather than by judicial proceedings; (Article 35)

c) the authors of any such information, as well as the directors, editors,
or owners of the means o communication by which it is published, were liable
for prison sentences;

d) insults published in foreign newspapers or transmitted by foreign radio
or television stations were considered as having taken place on Panamanian soil
if the newspaper circulated in Panama or the transmission was received in Panama;
(Article 25)

e) those were liable who from the territory of Panama sent any calumnious or
insulting material, or gave orders for its publication or transmission, or contributed
to the reception or divulgation in Panama of those newspapers or transmissions
by which the punishable act was committed. (Article 25)

4. A number of complaints have alleged the violation of the rights to freedom
of investigation, opinion, expression and dissemination. One of them noted that
the Government had closed down and confiscated the following radio stations:
"Ondas Istmeñas," [1968] "La Voz de Colón," [1975] and "Radio
Impacto" [1976]. With regard to the newspapers, it was said that the Government
exerts great pressure over the privately owned ones.

A political group declared that freedom of the press is severely restricted
by the fact that three of the newspapers printed in Panama are published by
Editora Renovación, whose principal stockholder is said to be a close adviser
of General Torrijos, and a fourth, the Estrella de Panamá, is closely connected
to the Government:

Aside from these considerations, here in Panama, until just before the signing
of the treaties there was not even a little freedom of the press. After the
signing we can point out that freedom of expression is given to us with an eye-dropper.
We have taken various announcements to different newspapers, the majority has
never been published and in the best cases any announcement or writing is subject
to prior censorship by the G-2 of the National Guard. The same things happen
with radio journalism . . . l. In view of the facts that serve as evidence we
can declare that in the country there is no freedom of expression.

5. The Press: Individual Cases

a. "Quiubo"

A communication addressed to the IACHR made the following allegation with
regard to the closing of "Quiubo":

A well-known Panamanian newsman, Ramón Jiménez, was detained and held incommunicado
for several hours . . . apparently for trying to start a newspaper.

Jiménez, according to his brother and partner in the newspaper venture, Alfredo,
was taken from the printing plant by four plain-clothesmen in an official car
at about 11 a.m. Wednesday. [January 16, 1974]

The two brothers had planned to begin publishing today a daily magazine-sized
newspaper called "Quiubo (What's Up) with an initial circulation of 5,000
copies . . .

However, when word of the project reached the government, Jiménez was threatened
with deportation if he persevered with it . . . .

Summoned to the ministry, Jiménez was told by Minister of Government and Justice
Juan Materno Vásquez that the government believed the paper would be an opposition
organ, financed by the National Council of Private Enterprise (CONEP), . . .

Jiménez also was told by the chief of the National Guard's G-2 (Intelligence)
department, Lt. Col. Manuel A. Noriega, that the general staff had decided to
prohibit the publication and that persisting could lead to exile.

Following Jiménez arrest Wednesday, the National Guard raided the printing
plant during the lunch hour, carrying off business papers, check books and syndicated
material obtained in advance for the newspaper.

Jiménez said he agreed to cancel "Quiubo" to protect 20 employees
and his family from any physical danger. He said that insinuations that his
family could be in danger were made during his detention.

He said the order against "Quiubo" demonstrated that there is no
freedom of the press in Panama.

In answer to the request of the IACHR for a report on the closure or prohibition
of the newspaper "Quiubo", including details of the circumstances
and the legal basis for the action taken, the government of Panama supplied
only a document it described as follows:

On the so-called newspaper QUIUBO, whose alleged appearance is indicated as
1974, a photocopy of the writ of habeas corpus presented by Licentiate Salvador
Muñoz in behalf of Licentiate Ramón Jiménez V. and against the Minister of Government
and Justice, Doctor Juan Materno Vásquez and photocopy of the decision of the
Honorable Supreme Court of Justice.

b. "La Opinión Pública"

According to information supplied by the Government of Panama, it was notified
by Tomás H. Herrera D. of the proposed publication of a newspaper entitled "La
Opinión Pública," and it decided by Resolution No. 009, 6 March 1975, signed
by the Minister of Government, to block that publication because the owner,
Center of national Studies, S.A. (Centro de Estudios Nacionales) "has not
shown its legal existence."

At the request of the Minister of Government, who alleged a violation of Cabinet
Decree 343, Article 3(2), the Minister of Commerce and Industry then cancelled
the license of "Editorial Verdad, S.A.," owned by Ramón and Alfredo
Jiménez, who had agreed to print the newspaper.

Government officials allegedly confiscated the editorial material for the
first edition which reportedly contained articles critical of the government's
attitude in the Panama Canal treaty negotiations and of new import duties.

6. The Press: Editora Renovación

Communications addressed to the IACHR maintain that the Government of Panama
interferes with the right to freedom of expression through its control over
Editora Renovación, which publishes Matutino, Crítica, La República and Dominical.

Editora Renovación was founded for the purpose of purchasing the newspapers
previously published by the Arias family under the name Editora El Panamá América:
El Panamá, The Panama American, Crítica, and Expreso. It was alleged that the
current government devised a means of taking control without expropriation.
First, a minority shareholder brought a suit against the company, alleging mismanagement
and failure to pay dividends. Then, the Court ordered a judicial sale at the
assessed valuation rather than the market price, and the Government arranged
for persons of its confidence to make the purchase, as sole bidder, with a loan
from the National Bank of Panama.

Allegation that Editora Renovación is government-controlled are based upon
its editorial policy and the relationship between the founding officers of the
corporation and the government. The Commission found in the Editora Renovación
newspapers, a uniform expression of the Government's position, an absence of
other points of view, and a tendency to manipulate news reports and newspaper
columns with a view toward intimidating and denigrating persons considered as
opponents of the government. Members of the opposition have been falsely portrayed
in these papers as common criminals and homosexuals, and false information has
been published for the apparent purpose of provoking dissention among opposition
groups.

7. The Radio

Communications alleging violations of the right to freedom of expression point
to the following incidents as examples of the suppr5ession of independent radio
commentary:

a. Radio Impacto

As a result of his interest in the disappearance of Father Gallego, the manager
of Radio Impacto, Alberto Quirós Guardia, was allegedly threatened by a plainclothes
member of G-2 in early September of 1971. When returning home from a midnight
mass marking the disappearance of Father Gallego, his car was forced to the
side of the road by another vehicle. "His tape recorder was seized at gunpoint
and smashed by a plainclothes member of G-2 who threatened Quirós Guardia with
jail." "His wife's screams brought three uniformed National Guardsmen
to the scene who dissuaded the agent."

On December 3, 1971, Radio Impacto was suspended for 90 days for having violated
"Article 1 of Cabinet Decree no. 107, 22 April 1971, which modifies Article
28 of Cabinet Decree No. 343." (Ministry of Government and Justice, Resolution
610, 3 December 1971)

In august of 1973, Radio Impacto was threatened by the Minister of Government
with stiff action if it continued to be "irresponsible." Radio RBC
received the same threat. It was alleged that these threats were a response
to coverage of the student strikes in Chiriquí against Communist influence.

In May of 1975, Radio Impacto was attacked by the pro-Government Federation
of Panamanian Students (FEP) after it had spoken out in favor of the position
of the rival student group, the Revolutionary Students Federation (FER). Allegedly
instigated and accompanied by members of G-2, the students showered the station
with stones, painted it, and insulted those inside it.

Radio Impacto requested Government protection but no protection was provided.
In response to the attack, the Circle of Independent radio Journalists, sent
a protest to the Minister of Government on May 25:

The authorities of the Republic are instituted and constituted to protect
the life, honor and property of those associated, Constitutional precept Article
17, to fail to recognize it is to laugh at the Constitution in effect, we condemn
and repudiate uncivilized actions against the radio station Radio Impacto and
its workers. . . .

On January 20, 1976, Alberto Quirós Guardia was arrested and sent into exile.
The radio was closed and the employees arrested on the same day.

Its license to operate was cancelled on February 12, 1976, by Resolution 47
of the Ministry of Government and Justice, which claimed that: 1) the station
had been spreading false information, in violation of Cabinet Decree 343, 2)
it had waged a permanent campaign of subversion by means of false and misleading
news and commentaries in violation of Decree 342, and 3) it had not complied
with the record-keeping requirements of Decree 343. Finally, it said that the
station needed repairs and modifications for the safety of its personnel.

b. Official Guidelines for Radio and TV

Shortly after the attack on Radio Impacto, on Ma 27, 1975, the Government called
a meeting of the representatives of radio and television stations for the purpose
of suggesting guidelines which some have seen as the imposition of prior censorship.
Those guidelines were embodied in an official communique of César Rodríguez
M., Minister of Government and Justice, dated may 29, 1975:

The Ministry of Government and Justice, conscious of its responsibility in
maintaining the greatest degree of prudence, serenity and tranquility in the
nation through the communications media, calls to the attention of the holders
of radio frequencies and radio journalists who make use of them of the need
not to be hasty or create alarm with news related to student and education matters,
to the negotiations with the United States of America and to public services.
Consequently, when you desire to make references to the above-mentioned subjects,
we exhort you to consult with the competent authorities.

8. Suppression of the Freedom of Expression of Individuals and Groups

Communications received and on-site interviews give to understand that many
individuals and groups do not feel free to express their opinions in Panama.
The IACHR has been informed in many cases that people and organizations are
intimidated by governmental actions such as arrests, threats, and the exiling
of members of the opposition.

There seems to be general agreement in Panama that more freedom of expression
has been permitted in recent months because of the treaty negotiations, the
plebiscite, and visits of foreign congressmen and international organizations.
However, most of those who expressed an opinion fear that as soon as the ratification
of the U.S. is obtained or the treaty situation becomes otherwise defined, the
situation will revert to "normal". Those who hold such fears point
to actions taken against newspapers and the communications media, as well as
a history of actions against individuals and groups, some of which are summarized
in the paragraphs that follows.

The Movement of Independent Lawyers published an informative Bulleting and
for this reason its Directors were threatened with the application of a Press
Decree whereby this publication was considered a crime. Subsequently, and due
to the fact that these threats went unheeded, three of the directors of that
Movement were expatriated.

b. Winston Robles

Winston Robles, a Professor of Law at the University of Panama, who was sent
into exile in 1976, spoke out at the university against the interference of
the National Guard in the system of justice in 1974-75. "At that time,"
he relates in a published document, "I was harassed by intimidating telephone
calls, threatening me with expatriation." "I was labeled a 'protector'
of drug consumers by the government press."

c. Florencio Enrique Delgado

Florencio Enrique Delgado, a business executive, was arrested by G-2 on June
14, 1975, after a member of the National Guard reported a private conversation
in which Delgado criticized the government's economic policies, the ineptness
of some of its ministers, and the influence of communism. He was held for 3
days by G-2 and was then turned over to the Attorney General's office and finally
to the Ministry of Government and Justice, which charged him with "attempting
to join a group to undermine the security of the current government and with
offending the dignity of the Ministers of State." Arrest and questioning
of some of his friends and associates showed that he had expressed similar ideas
in conversations with them and had shown several of them a copy of an open letter
entitled "Alert Panamanians!" which he was considering making public.
Delgado was released from the Model Jail (Cárcel Modelo) on July 7.

d. Women's Patriotic Union (Unión Patriótica Femenina)

The Unión Patriótica Femenina, an organization of professional women and housewives,
is another group whose right to freedom of expression and opinion has allegedly
been interfered with by the Government. This group told the Special Commission
that it sponsors talks and seminars on a variety of topics, including current
events and the rights and duties of citizens.

Three of its members, Fulvia Morales, Blanca de Marchosky, and Alma Robles
de Santos were arrested and interrogated by G-2 on September 15, 1976 shortly
after leaving a meeting in the Canal zone. (See Chapter III, p.42). They were
released two days later. One left the country with her husband, and a fourth
member of the organization, Querube de Carles (the wife of exile Rubén Carles
Jr.), left when she was allegedly informed that she should abandon the country
or her friends would be subject to torture and others would be arrested.

e. Businessman (name withheld)

More recently, in the latter part of 1977, a Panamanian businessman interviewed
by the IACHR, reported that he was warned by government officials to keep away
from politics or his business would be affected by actions taken by the National
Bank.

9. The Repeal of Decree 343

In a Note of May 2, 1978, the Panamanian Mission to the O.A.S. informed the
IACHR that Cabinet Decree 343, of October 31, 1969, had been repealed by Law
No. 7, of February 10, 1978 (Gaceta Oficial, No. 18516, 14 February 1978).

Decree 343 was replaced by Law No. 8 of February 10, 1978 (Gaceta Oficial,
No. 18516, 14 February 1978), which could represent a significant improvement
insofar as the protection of the right to freedom of expression. The chapter
on crimes against public order, which provided for imprisonment and fines in
the case of the publication of false or unauthorized information has been eliminated
in the new law. The definitions of calumny and insult are simplified, and if
interpreted by an independent judiciary, should provide sufficient protection.
And finally, the finding of guilt by administrative decree has been replaced
by judicial proceedings in the case of complaints initiated by the state.

Notes_____________________

1 American Convention on Human Rights

Article 13. Freedom of Thought and Expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right
includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds,
regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of
art, or through any other medium of one's choice.

2. The exercise of the right provided for in the foregoing paragraph shall
not be subject to prior censorship but shall be subject to subsequent imposition
of liability, which shall be expressly established by law to the extent necessary
to ensure:

a. respect for the rights or reputations of others; or

b. the protection of national security, public order, or public health or
morals.

3. The right of expression may not be restricted by indirect methods or means,
such as the abuse of government or private controls over newsprint, radio broadcasting
frequencies, or equipment used in the dissemination of information, or by any
other means tending to impede the communication and circulation of ideas and
opinions.

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2 above, public entertainments
may be subject by law to prior censorship for the sole purpose of regulating
access to them for the moral protection of childhood and adolescence.

5. Any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial, or religious
hatred that constitute incitements to lawless violence or to any other similar
illegal action against any person or group of persons on any grounds including
those of race, color, religion, language, or national origin shall be considered
as offenses punishable by law.